Civil War began because of Slavery

[revelarts]

Dragon. You should also take note, how rev rarely, if ever wants to admit...EVEN BLACK men had Black slaves back then. Imagine Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton...Biting their tongue...with such truth?

Yep there were some black men that had slaves. It's was wrong AT. probably worse. Why do you think i have problem admitting that? I'm not claiming that white people are worse humans than anyone else. I don't claim... like some have about blacks... that whites have inborn EVIL PROPENSITIES or some racist BS like that. American whites and blacks are human beings. All human beings are corrupt and corruptible especially when they rally around various lies of pride like the white supremacy or Ayrian supremacy or Allah wants the infidels dead. But some human corruption just comes the love of money and power. the lies are just a cover to grease the wheels of oppression.

AT some blacks sold other blacks into slavery from Africa too. That was horrifically wrong as well. Do you know that the word SLAVE comes From the root SLAV as in Slavic peoples who were slaves in parts of Europe.
But no one here spends time talking about denying that do they?
But who exactly is denying thing about U.S. slavery here at DP A.T.?
do you want to call them out now for us?

[Kathianne]

My planned schedule has been messed up, had to work today when it was supposed to be off. No day off until next Friday, so time is limited.

I just want to address one point here for the time being, 'why the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in the South.' I thought 'everyone knew of at least the most pragmatic reason':

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/262...;view=fulltext

Abraham Lincoln and the Border States

WILLIAM E. GIENAPP

Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)Volume 13, Issue 1, 1992, pp. 13-46
Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.2629860.0013.104
Permissions



"I hope to have God on my side," Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said early in the war, "but I must have Kentucky." Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln hesitated to invoke divine sanction of human causes, but his wry comment unerringly acknowledged the critical importance of the border states to the Union cause. Following the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops in April 1861, public opinion in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri was sharply divided and these states' ultimate allegiance uncertain. The residents of the border were torn between their close cultural ties with the South, on the one hand, and their long tradition of Unionism and political moderation on the other. At the same time, the expansion of the railroad network in the 1850s had disrupted these states' traditional trade patterns with the South by directing a growing amount of commerce, including farmstuffs, northward, so economically they looked in both directions. With popular emotions running high, there was a very real possibility that they would follow the Upper South out of the Union and join the Confederacy.



Together Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri had a white population of almost 2,600,000, nearly half that of the population of the eleven states of the Confederacy. [1] In none of the border states did slavery approach the importance it had in the Deep South, but only in Delaware, with fewer than 2,000 slaves out of a total population of about 112,000, was it insignificant (Table 1). Delaware stood alone among the border states in not containing a serious movement for secession. [2]

...

Really a fascinating look at the border states in relation to political/war decisions.

[indago]

The Emancipation Proclamation was a military strategy by Lincoln. His thinking was that the economy of the South would be vastly disrupted by this maneuver, and shorten the war.

[aboutime]

Yep there were some black men that had slaves. It's was wrong AT. probably worse. Why do you think i have problem admitting that? I'm not claiming that white people are worse humans than anyone else. I don't claim... like some have about blacks... that whites have inborn EVIL PROPENSITIES or some racist BS like that. American whites and blacks are human beings. All human beings are corrupt and corruptible especially when they rally around various lies of pride like the white supremacy or Ayrian supremacy or Allah wants the infidels dead. But some human corruption just comes the love of money and power. the lies are just a cover to grease the wheels of oppression.

AT some blacks sold other blacks into slavery from Africa too. That was horrifically wrong as well. Do you know that the word SLAVE comes From the root SLAV as in Slavic peoples who were slaves in parts of Europe.
But no one here spends time talking about denying that do they?
But who exactly is denying thing about U.S. slavery here at DP A.T.?
do you want to call them out now for us?

Sure thing. I'm calling you, and your ability to twist endless context out of shape by pretending, as you do; that only you are here to clear everyone else up about any topic.
Why should anyone talk about anything...The way you want them to talk?
You still sound like you work for the Obama administration, or at least, had some input for the DNC Talking Points Manual. Look at how you challenge nearly everyone by attempting to belittle them, with facts...only you want to talk about.
So..consider yourself CALLED OUT rev. Nobody really cares what the word slavery came from. That's just another attempt to change the context of the original question.

[Kathianne]

Sure thing. I'm calling you, and your ability to twist endless context out of shape by pretending, as you do; that only you are here to clear everyone else up about any topic.
Why should anyone talk about anything...The way you want them to talk?
You still sound like you work for the Obama administration, or at least, had some input for the DNC Talking Points Manual. Look at how you challenge nearly everyone by attempting to belittle them, with facts...only you want to talk about.
So..consider yourself CALLED OUT rev. Nobody really cares what the word slavery came from. That's just another attempt to change the context of the original question.

When one is taking a side in a 'debate' the norm is to provide some justification for that position. Rev has done that repeatedly. I might argue that it would be beneficial at times, to provide one or two, reserving the others for other replies if necessary; but that is about style.

Would you find it more beneficial if like so many threads we just have: "See, you're a liberal." "There is no backing down from this, you ARE a liberal!" "No, I'm trying to have a discussion!" "Obama!!!!"

[aboutime]

When one is taking a side in a 'debate' the norm is to provide some justification for that position. Rev has done that repeatedly. I might argue that it would be beneficial at times, to provide one or two, reserving the others for other replies if necessary; but that is about style.

Would you find it more beneficial if like so many threads we just have: "See, you're a liberal." "There is no backing down from this, you ARE a liberal!" "No, I'm trying to have a discussion!" "Obama!!!!"

No disrespect intended here Kathianne. But, I directed my words to rev. My apologies if you disagree with what I have said to him, and the way I have said it.

[Kathianne]

No disrespect intended here Kathianne. But, I directed my words to rev. My apologies if you disagree with what I have said to him, and the way I have said it.

No disrespect taken or meant to you. I responded to what you wrote. Just because you choose to nearly always include the poster's name to what you are responding does not limit others from putting in their opinion.

[revelarts]

When one is taking a side in a 'debate' the norm is to provide some justification for that position. Rev has done that repeatedly. I might argue that it would be beneficial at times, to provide one or two, reserving the others for other replies if necessary; but that is about style.

thanks, yes it's my understanding of debate too that you take a position and defend it with what you consider relevant info.

And yes i do have tendency at times to OVER LOAD info. I have to say in my defense this time that the info in the 1st several post here were spread out here and there in other threads around the board already in various conversations. And i just COLLECTED them here and added a bit more. Since the method of salting this info out there a piece at a time seemed to have been ignored, passed over or "rebutted" by assertions LIKE "your wrong!".

I felt a bit compelled (i was kinda bent)... compelled to try and have the weight and volume have a certain impact ... if possible.

Would you find it more beneficial if like so many threads we just have: "See, you're a liberal." "There is no backing down from this, you ARE a liberal!" "No, I'm trying to have a discussion!" "Obama!!!!"

LOL! yeah,
funny, but you know.. that's kinda sad really.

[hjmick]

I've always found this letter interesting...

EXECUTIVE MANSTON,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

To me, if interpreted as written, it would seem to indicate that Lincoln's primary reason for the war was the preservation of the Union, while the South's reason for secession was the changing laws and attitudes on slavery...


Did you know that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, and the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control, i.e. the Southern states currently fighting against the Union. It didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control with the hope of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states...


The idea that secession should be prevented at all costs I also find amusing. Do we think the Founding Fathers had a problem with the concept? Isn't that exactly what they did in 1776? In fact, if any of you enjoy reading for pleasure, there is a book by Steve Berry titled The Lincoln Myth that uses this idea as a plot point in the story...

[NightTrain]

The idea that secession should be prevented at all costs I also find amusing. Do we think the Founding Fathers had a problem with the concept?

James Madison specifically addressed the issue, and said it wasn't allowed in a personal letter to Daniel Webster. I don't think anyone could be more of an expert on the Constitution than he.

We've already covered this in another thread, and Rev is right. The war was fought over secession; but the #1 reason behind the South's attempt to leave was indeed slavery, which is clearly documented in the States' declarations when they made the move.

[revelarts]

I've always found this letter interesting...
To me, if interpreted as written, it would seem to indicate that Lincoln's primary reason for the war was the preservation of the Union, while the South's reason for secession was the changing laws and attitudes on slavery...
....
The idea that secession should be prevented at all costs I also find amusing. Do we think the Founding Fathers had a problem with the concept? Isn't that exactly what they did in 1776? In fact, if any of you enjoy reading for pleasure, there is a book by Steve Berry titled The Lincoln Myth that uses this idea as a plot point in the story...

I've seen this letter, and many other similar comments by Lincoln before the war. and after the war began. The problem is, as several of my post show, that the South didn't believe him. And the republican party in general sprang up in protest to the supreme court decision to perpetuate slavery in he territories and elsewhere. so the North was leaning harshly against slavery.

It's not part of my point to make Lincoln into an abolitionist saint, "myth" or strawman as he's been present to me elsewhere. My contention is that if you don't have your latter point .."South's reason for secession was the changing laws and attitudes on slavery"... then you don't get the civil war.

it takes 2 to fight a war, each side doesn't have to agree with the others real motives. If a husband thinks his wife is cheating and attacks the suspect man who DOES find the wife attractive and has said so publicly often. the cause IS the wife. they are in fact fighting over the wife. Even if the accused never intended to fight for her. Does matter at this It's on and if he wins he may get the woman he'd only hoped one day might be his. People may say it was REALLY over a misunderstanding. ok yeah in the abstract but the misunderstanding OVER the wife. not over a car or money or a job.... the wife.

I do understand people like to make the distinction between reasons for secession and the reasons for war. However it seems to me sometimes people want to make the 2 as if they're COMPLETELY DISTINCT separate AIR TIGHT events with COMPLETELY DISTINCT separate AIR TIGHT causes.

the changing laws IN the NORTH was from a RISING and fervent Anti-Slavery sentiment. one that had already shed blood in the territories and at Harpers Ferry. The intent of which was to ultimately abolish it.

In another Lincoln speech he said a “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,”.
the South took those as fighting words. And many in the North embraced the concept. While many in the north didn't really want to fight over it in War they did want slavery gone and the union preserved in the process. With all that on the table ALL stirred by decades of struggle over the same question finally the debate came to arms.

to say it's not "because" of slavery seems less than forthcoming. without it there'd be no secession or war. the package deal.

Lincoln tried to solve the problem --Secession and War-- by telling the south at 1st in so many words "OK keep your slavery we don't really mean it, really!" the south didn't go for that and then he said "OK we'll BUY your slaves." "During the first two years of the war Lincoln repeatedly offered ‘compensated emancipation’ to the border slave states that remained in the Union and any Confederate states interested," Foner said. "But they all rejected it. Lincoln was willing to pay but Southerners were not willing to give up their slaves, for money or for any other reason." " Lincoln’s request to Congress in 1862 for money to buy the freedom of slaves. Here’s how that proposal began:"Resolved that the United States ought to co-operate with any state which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such state pecuniary aid, to be used by such state in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences public and private, produced by such change of system. ...A year earlier, he had tried to get Delaware to pass a bill that would have cleared the way for Washington to spend $719,200 to free the state’s entire slave population, about 1,800 at that time. The bill failed in the Delaware Legislature.
In one odd case, Lincoln personally offered to buy a slave from an owner in Kentucky." ...In late 1862, when an escaped slave found refuge with a Union army regiment, and the Kentucky owner demanded his return, Lincoln wrote to the owner, "I will pay you any sum not to exceed $500."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ves-free-them/

If he'd BOUGHT the southern slaves the WAR would stop.
Notice he did not offer to give them money to REJION the UNION with slavery intact.
SLAVERY was the problem, the cause. He was trying to remove the cause of the conflict.

I think part of the conflict between those of who are sincere and of less emotional opinions is over the way the question is framed.
If someone says "the NORTH didn't go a war to 'Free the Slaves'."
That, in a narrow sense, is correct.
But if you ask the overall question. Why was the civil war fought?
It was fought because of Slavery.
no slavery, no war. period.

While it's true that some in north had slaves and that not everyone in the North was even anti-slavery the HEATED and through going current was anti-slavery. Somewhat similar to the fact that not everyone in the U.S. during the revolution was Anti-MONARCHY and some would have been very comfortable having Washington as King. Still the major gist was freedom from monarchy and to self representation. And England's determination to kept the colonies.
it takes 2 with conflicting if not opposite opinions over an object to cause fight.

[revelarts]

….Did you know that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, and the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control, i.e. the Southern states currently fighting against the Union. It didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control with the hope of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states...

Yes, I've known that for some time. it's one of the things that got me into looking at the question from both sides years ago. But I think even this point can be turned back at towards the question in favor of slavery begin the cause.
In this sense. If Lincoln didn't really CARE about slavery or whether the south kept their slaves why would he waste time making a resolution about a Non-ISSUE for him and the North?

Plus it had been threaten for decades. secession over slavery and war. a package deal. Jefferson Davis said it himself. quoted earlier.

the emancipation proclamation and Lincoln's letter are interesting pieces Here's one speech from the southern perspective that's really striking to me. It's given by the new
Vice president of the Confederacy Stevens:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition....

making very clear what the confederacy was really about, as it's "cornerstone".
puts a clear light on the confederacy was all about.

...and on the meaning of the confederate FLAG BTW

[DragonStryk72]

Yes, I've known that for some time. it's one of the things that got me into looking at the question from both sides years ago. But I think even this point can be turned back at towards the question in favor of slavery begin the cause.
In this sense. If Lincoln didn't really CARE about slavery or whether the south kept their slaves why would he waste time making a resolution about a Non-ISSUE for him and the North?

Plus it had been threaten for decades. secession over slavery and war. a package deal. Jefferson Davis said it himself. quoted earlier.

the emancipation proclamation and Lincoln's letter are interesting pieces Here's one speech from the southern perspective that's really striking to me. It's given by the new
Vice president of the Confederacy Stevens:

making very clear what the confederacy was really about, as it's "cornerstone".
puts a clear light on the confederacy was all about.

...and on the meaning of the confederate FLAG BTW

Actually, you also have to break it down separately, even when referring to slavery. Remember that it was more than just the aspect you're referring to, it was an industry. It was global, in fact, although nations were moving away from it, it was still the norm, and not the oddity. For modern times, it would be like trying to completely get rid of the oil industry. Whether it would be better for the planet notwithstanding, it would collapse whole economies (You know, like happened to the South when it was abolished), and put absurd numbers of people out of work.

This is why England's solution worked so well. By buying out all the slaves, then freeing them, the traders and owners had a nest egg to reinvest otherwise with, or to pay their now-employees while they worked out the differences in their books. We could have done it that way, and likely avoided the whole war, but yeah, it was about slavery. That's why we're the only developed country in the world to have a war over it.

Whether the north was producing slaves is immaterial, as they were still buying, and using, slaves. Your entire rebuttal of my questions was "Well, okay, yeah, that's all technically true, but they were really conflicted about it." The White House itself still had slaves, there's no way to continue making an argument on the point.

Even the South, over the course of the war, began to move incrementally away from slavery, because the international markets were moving away from them anyway.

[revelarts]

Actually, you also have to break it down separately, even when referring to slavery. Remember that it was more than just the aspect you're referring to, it was an industry. It was global, in fact, although nations were moving away from it, it was still the norm, and not the oddity. For modern times, it would be like trying to completely get rid of the oil industry. Whether it would be better for the planet notwithstanding, it would collapse whole economies (You know, like happened to the South when it was abolished), and put absurd numbers of people out of work.

This is why England's solution worked so well. By buying out all the slaves, then freeing them, the traders and owners had a nest egg to reinvest otherwise with, or to pay their now-employees while they worked out the differences in their books. We could have done it that way, and likely avoided the whole war, but yeah, it was about slavery. That's why we're the only developed country in the world to have a war over it.

Whether the north was producing slaves is immaterial, as they were still buying, and using, slaves. Your entire rebuttal of my questions was "Well, okay, yeah, that's all technically true, but they were really conflicted about it." The White House itself still had slaves, there's no way to continue making an argument on the point.

Even the South, over the course of the war, began to move incrementally away from slavery, because the international markets were moving away from them anyway.

I don't think were in much disagreement here.

Yes, the north was very conflicted about slavery in many ways. I'm not sure why people don't think i understand that. Yes the north was conflicted and very racist in many ways. even some of the abolishoist were pretty hardcore racist. The North was not perfect by ANY stretch but it was moving away from slavery with a real moral passion. A passion that the south understood well as the opposite of their own vision of what slavery was..
But the South wasn't very conflicted at all. It believed without much reservation that slavery was, moral, a constitutional right and that the white man was the "natural" ruler of blacks. Also, as you say, the south was economically wedded to it. So they had few desires economically or morally to give it up.
But even with that background over the decades many proposals in the upper southern states had been raised about removing slavery ..all shot down that i know of. However after secession the confederate constitution cemented legal slavery into the the southern states indefinitely. I really don't know how politically those few apposed to slavery were going to get a leg up in a fight to abolish what had JUST been etched into the highest law of the land. Imagine if there was a new amendment just passed and ratified that made abortion a full legal right today. How much harder would it make it for pro-life advocates to fight and defeat abortion in the U.S.?
And I don't know how of much a move economically there was to slow or divest from slavery in the south. i've read a few letters of people geared to move slavery into other south american countries and especially into the new territories as the confederacy had dreams of moving westward and south. The slave trade was waning world wide but the products of slavery i'm not so sure. if you've got some info on that i'd love to see it.

One article I posted in another thread was about the South's failure to even be willing free slave to fight in the war until the very last days when they were in full desperation mode. During the 1st 3.5 years of war Many basically asked the question. "why are we fighting if we are going to free the slaves if they fight in the war anyway?

[red state]

Originally Posted by DragonStryk72
Okay, so please post the following facts:

Why was slavery still legal in the north all throughout the Civil War?

Why were there more freed black men and women in the South than in the North?

Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free Southern slaves, and not Northern ones?

Why didn't the 13th Amendment get rolling until after the war?

Why was it still legal in Delaware, until they finally ratified it in 1901?

If the Civil War was about slavery, then only one side would have it. That's pretty simple logic, Rev. So since both sides had slaves, and there were more free in the South, how can it be about slavery?

Dragon. You should also take note, how rev rarely, if ever wants to admit...EVEN BLACK men had Black slaves back then. Imagine Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton...Biting their tongue...with such truth?

WOW, THIS HAS BEEN A FANTASTIC THREAD AND AN EXTREMELY EDUCATIONAL ONE AS I DIDN'T KNOW THE NORTH STILL HAD SLAVES. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THEY HAD FOLLOWED IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF YE MERRY OLE ENGLAND AND HAD ALLOWED SLAVERY TO FIZZLE OUT *(AS SHOULD GOOD OLE ABE ALLOWED SLAVERY TO FIZZLE OUT). IF THE NORTH HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO FIZZLE SLAVERY OUT....WHAT WOULD BE THE OBJECTIVE IN FORCING SOUTHERNERS TO LOSE THEIR 'INVESTMENT' ABRUPTLY AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OF REIMBURSEMENT UNLESS WHAT GUNNY SAID IS TRUE (WHICH IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND AS TRUE HISTORY AND NOT THE CRAP SCHOOLS ARE PROPAGANDIZING).

EVEN GOOD OLE ABE WAS GONNA ALLOW SLAVERY IF TALK OF SECESSION WAS STIFLED.....ONLY AFTER THE SOUTH TOLD HIM TO "STICK IT" DID HE USE SLAVERY AS THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN TO EXCUSE WHAT HE HAD GONE THROUGH WITH.

HAD THE SOUTH NOT BEEN GREATLY OUTNUMBERED, HAD MORE INDUSTRY AND HAD RETAINED THE ALLIES WE HAD LINED UP.......THE SOUTH WOULD HAVE WON, TECHNOLOGY WOULD HAVE SOON ENDED SLAVERY & ALL OF AMERICA WOULD MOST DEFINITELY BEEN MORE LIKE THE SOUTH WHICH IS............HUM........BETTER (A WHOLE LOT BETTER).

IF A CIVIL WAR IS COMING.........IT'LL BE A LOT NASTIER THIS TIME AROUND, BUT WITH A DIFFERENT OUTCOME. THIS TIME, WE HAVE THOSE ALL AROUND THE NATION WHO SEE THINGS OUR WAY AND THIS TIME WE HAVE MORE OF THE TECHNOLOGY (SUCH AS NASA, MAJOR SHIP YARDS AND LIL' NATION GUARD STATIONS ALL AROUND THAT HAVE BATTLE HARDENED/EXPERIENCED SOLDIERS WHO HAVE FOUGHT MUCH OF THE NATION'S BATTLES RECENTLY).....AND WE'RE NOT SO MUCH OUTNUMBERED THIS TIME EITHER (AND ARE MUCH BETTER SHOTS) AND WE STILL HAVE MOST OF THE FOOD, WATER AND GRIT.

I DON'T WANT A WAR BETWEEN THE LEFT & RIGHT (WHICH IS WHAT IT WILL BE) BUT IF THEY PULL ANOTHER ONE LIKE THEY DID THIS LAST WEEK THAT FORCES US TO TIP TOE LIKE CANADA...............I'LL BE ALL FOR IT!!!!!!